Saturday, August 18, 2007 Due process By Dominador A. Almirante Labor case digest
RESPONDENTS who were stevedores of petitioner Asian Terminals Inc. were dismissed from the service for refusal to work. In compliance to due process, petitioner contended that respondents were sent copies of the sworn statement of Wilfredo Acay, respondents’ supervisor, that they refused to work in the evening of April 30, 1994. Was the notice requirement sufficiently complied with?
Ruling: No.
No employee may be validly dismissed unless the employer has complied with the two notice requirements: (1) a written notice containing a statement of the cause for termination to afford the employee an opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires; and (2) and a written notice stating clearly the reason of the termination. The procedure is mandatory and failure to comply with these procedural requirements for terminating employment taints the dismissal with illegality.
In the instant case, the Court of Appeals found that while an investigation was conducted, however, both petitioners failed to send respondents the first notice required by the Rule.
This sworn statement cannot be considered as the first notice required by the said Rule if, at all, it is a mere narration under oath of what transpired in the evening of April 30, 1994, and that respondents were among the stevedores who disobeyed Wilfredo Acay’s order to work. (Asian Terminals Inc., et. al. versus Danilo Marbella, et. al. G.R. No. 149074, Aug. 10, 2006).
